Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Sick, sick people 7

Round 5... and angry doc is running out of suitable pictures for the series. Nevertheless, he thinks that since he has logged all the letters which had used medical reasons as justifications against the decriminalisation of sex between men and their rebuttals, he should continue for completeness' sake...

He went to great lengths to provide statistical data that male-to-male sexual activities have resulted in a disproportionately high incidence of HIV transmission.

Considering this with his other key point that homosexuality is not an immutable trait and that we should not deny anyone the right to change, Dr Chin seems to suggest that gay men should exercise the right to change their sexual orientation in view of the health risks they face.

With discrimination faced by gay people in many societies, it is interesting that not more gay men have exercised the right to change their orientation by evidence that most self-identified gay men remain gay.

One wonders who in their right mind would choose to suffer societal rejection if there was a way out. If reparative therapy to change one's sexual orientation is so pervasively successful as Dr Chin claims (he has not provided any statistical evidence though), why is it not adopted by most medical practioners as a treatment for homosexuality?

It is irresponsible for a medical doctor to suggest a treatment based on one study. Dr Chin has conveniently ignored the comments made by the author of the study, Dr Robert Spitzer himself, in response to misuse of his study results as published in the Wall Street Journal May 21, 2001 (verbatim).

'In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum. Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior, but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity; and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four.

'I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.

'I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did.'

The issue here is not about the right to change one's sexual orientation. Since when has that right been denied?

As a medical doctor communicating his views in a public forum, Dr Chin should have presented a more robust analysis of a scientific study done by someone else, especially when there already exists a wide spectrum of professional opinions on the study in question.

Ms Lee has quoted from the affidavit for a court case of one medical doctor, John R. Diggs, Jr, MD, that homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy.

A closer examination of the affidavit whose source is supplied by Ms Lee herself shows that Dr Diggs observed: 'People who engage in homosexuality have the same basic sexual equipment as people who do not.'

This meant that heterosexuals have the same sexual organs and some can also engage in what is regarded as 'homosexual acts' as well.

Unsafe sex by heterosexuals and homosexuals can result in the same medical and health risks like those listed by Ms Lee - promiscuity, multiple sexual partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse.

Homosexuals do not have the monopoly of such risks. In reality heterosexuals carry higher risks and spread sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/Aids to their sexual partners and unborn children.

In the discussion on natural drives, Dr Diggs wrote: 'We discourage heterosexual promiscuity, cigarette smoking, and intoxication of various sorts, even though there may be a natural inclination to do these things. Some claim a natural inclination, as adults, to sexually exploit children. This society discourages to the point of making it criminal.'

Dr Diggs is right that we should discourage heterosexuals from expressing such inclinations. At the same time I agree with him that we should do the same with homosexuals.

But homosexual orientation is not an inclination or a tendency that we must curb. It is just as natural an orientation as the heterosexual to engage in heterosexual and for some homosexual acts as well.

Sexuality is common and the health risks of sexual acts are the same. The distinctive difference is that of same-sex and opposite-sex acts.

Why do we criminalise one and not the other? This is where there is a need for equality before the law and justice needs to be seen to be served.

Dr Yap Kim Hao

angry doc finds it rather ironic that a Doctor of Theology is teaching a Professor of Law how to interpret an affidavit submitted by a Doctor of Medicine.

Purple one is Tinky Winky. (with the triangular like radio antenna) - male low voice, but carried a handbag and liked ballet complete with tu-tu. I am 100% certain Tinky Winky was indeed gay. Purple some more!

Red one is Po. ( With the circular antenna) - smallest one, most likely kid, loves scooter and likely female.

"The Methodist Church in Singapore embraces a fundamentalist viewpoint of sexuality. Unlike in many other churches in the world, the stance of the Methodist Church in Singapore is firm and embraced by an overwhelming majority of both laity and clergy. The Church has repeated reaffirmed it's objection to homosexuality, although the Church's very first Bishop, Bishop Dr. Yap Kim Hao, opposes this stance. The opposition of Bishop Dr. Yap has led to his being denounced by the current leadership of the Methodist Church in Singapore, and barred from both celebrating sacraments and preaching in the pulpit."

This is a religious and moral issue, not a medical one. The Christians will not alter their Bible nor can we expect the Muslims to re-write the Koran. With a large number of adherents to these two major religions here, we can expect a lot of opposition to homosexuality. As long the the majority of the population are against it, we should not legalize homosexuality.